But I thought it was about POB? Why should someone's voting activity dictate one way or another what a post is worth? That seems to contradict itself.... pretty mightily actually.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
But I thought it was about POB? Why should someone's voting activity dictate one way or another what a post is worth? That seems to contradict itself.... pretty mightily actually.
It may because vote trading and vote selling (which are equivalent) is damaging to the game theory behind PoB as has been explained in posts many, many times going back three years.
So it comes down to value. If someone is doing damage to PoB then they may not be contributing on net, even if their posts are otherwise okay, and rewards should follow value contribution, or they are a waste of money.
That, I guess, is the logic behind curangel and others prioritizing these downvotes, but that is up to them as with any stakeholder deciding how to use their votes.
That makes sense, though they don't seem to define what exactly vote trading is. If you vote for someone and they in turn vote for you later on despite any kind of agreement or anything of the sort, does that constitute vote trading? And for those that have traded votes, at what level does it become damaging? Many on here tend to vote for content they like, people they like, and people that vote for them, all somewhat normal social behavior. My question to those groups has always been at what point does it become a "downvotabe offense"? I'd just like to see some guidelines that are enforced community wide...
They're entitled to their opinion on what is vote trading, what is adding value, etc.
There won't be any, other than perhaps what emerges over time as a result of stakeholder voting behavior (but could also change over time). There is no such enforcement mechanism other than voting itself.